Cancel task run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description adds minimal value beyond stating the HTTP method and endpoint. No new behavioral traits (e.g., side effects on other resources) are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences) and includes the HTTP call. However, the first sentence repeats the title verbatim, wasting words. Could be streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description covers the core action and constraint ('running task run') but omits expected response or error cases. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description covers the single parameter (taskRunId) with 100% coverage. The description merely echoes 'with the provided ID' without adding format, source, or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool cancels a task run using a provided ID, with a specific REST API call. While the purpose is unambiguous, it does not differentiate from sibling cancel tools (e.g., render_cancel_cron_job_run), missing a chance to clarify scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_cancel_deploy or render_cancel_job. The description implies usage only for running task runs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.